Staff "demanding" good ratings?

[Cuizer2]

It is quite obvious that you have never listened to anyone in your life telling you how to act. What you don't understand is that you don't have the authority to tell me how to act. As long as I am not violating any laws or rules, I am free to decide how I will act.

 

You keep bringing up this do not call registry but there is huge difference between a telemarketer you hever met and a person who has been serving you for a week. It is obvious that you don't have the moral compass to understand the difference. A sales pitch is a sales pitch. I don't want to hear it.

 

My last reply to you on this thread. Adios.

 

Go back and read the other comments. The "speech" makes others feel uncomfortable. Some do the best to ignore it. Some lie to make the person stop. Some leave early to avoid it and some just don't show up at all on the last night. Given this, and your position on this issue, you are clearly no authority on a "moral compass".

[Cuizer2]

You people could complicate a 1+ 1 math problem.

 

11 (eleven).

[champagne123]

11 (eleven).

 

rotflmao

Edited March 24, 2016 by champagne123
,MMM

[NightOne]

I did see where people understood various scales, but I didn't notice where they had any authority or ability to prove that RCL really used that scale.

 

 

I posted the links on NPS and I posted the link showing where at least one senior manager at Royal talked about using it. That is proof enough for me that at least they have used it on at least one occassion.

 

However, I agree that we don't have all the facts in regards to how they may be used in regards to the staff. (if at all)

 

The only first hand knowledge I personally have of *any* ratings used on board is what I was told by a Chops waiter:

 

Me: "How do you get to work here?"

 

Waiter: "Based on your performance ratings. You start in the buffet, move to MDR, and then to specialty restaurants. If I don't keep my performance rating high then I would be sent back to MDR" (I'm paraphrasing but that is what he said in a nutshell)

 

What rating system he was referring to and how it works... I don't know. :)

[Aquahound]

I think I have read all the posts in this thread...did I miss where anyone actually has any factual first-hand knowledge of how the ratings are actually interpreted or used?

Is this entire thread conjecture and supposition...or did I miss something?

 

No, you did not miss it. There's a lot of conjecture in this thread.

 

To be honest, I really don't care how the survey is used. If ratings do somehow affect a staff member's career, that's a matter between the employee and employer. It's not my business, nor is it my responsibility to be concerned about it.

[LMaxwell]

I posted the links on NPS and I posted the link showing where at least one senior manager at Royal talked about using it. That is proof enough for me that at least they have used it on at least one occassion.

 

However, I agree that we don't have all the facts in regards to how they may be used in regards to the staff. (if at all)

 

The only first hand knowledge I personally have of *any* ratings used on board is what I was told by a Chops waiter:

 

Me: "How do you get to work here?"

 

Waiter: "Based on your performance ratings. You start in the buffet, move to MDR, and then to specialty restaurants. If I don't keep my performance rating high then I would be sent back to MDR" (I'm paraphrasing but that is what he said in a nutshell)

 

What rating system he was referring to and how it works... I don't know. :)

 

If they were using NPS I don't think you'd be getting a speech from the staff about 10's. I very strongly believe they use CSI.

[John&LaLa]

If they were using NPS I don't think you'd be getting a speech from the staff about 10's. I very strongly believe they use CSI.

 

What's with all the acronyms?

 

Some nights it's SNAFU and FUBAR

[LMaxwell]

What's with all the acronyms?

 

Some nights it's SNAFU and FUBAR

 

NPS = Net Promoter Score

CSI = Customer Service Index

SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fouled Up

FUBAR = Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

 

Anyways; Net Promoter Score is more about the brand and usually a 7 or 8 and higher is considered a good score; 9 or 10 are viewed as excellent. 6 and below usually triggers additional surveying to find out why the score was low. Not many companies use Net Promoter Scores because they can't really use that to cut costs or employee benefits or bonuses.

[NightOne]

What's with all the acronyms?

 

Some nights it's SNAFU and FUBAR

 

I'm just in awe of how this thread went 132 posts deep before someone brought up their C&A status

 

and

 

That unless I missed it, no one suggested that certain C&A levels should be exempted from hearing said speech

 

 

I leave you with

 

LOL :)

[John&LaLa]

NPS = Net Promoter Score

CSI = Customer Service Index

SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fouled Up

FUBAR = Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

 

Anyways; Net Promoter Score is more about the brand and usually a 7 or 8 and higher is considered a good score; 9 or 10 are viewed as excellent. 6 and below usually triggers additional surveying to find out why the score was low. Not many companies use Net Promoter Scores because they can't really use that to cut costs or employee benefits or bonuses.

 

Fouled, sure, that's what I meant.

 

And thanks for the other two.

Edited March 24, 2016 by John&LaLa

[NightOne]

NPS = Net Promoter Score

CSI = Customer Service Index

SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fouled Up

FUBAR = Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

 

Anyways; Net Promoter Score is more about the brand and usually a 7 or 8 and higher is considered a good score; 9 or 10 are viewed as excellent. 6 and below usually triggers additional surveying to find out why the score was low. Not many companies use Net Promoter Scores because they can't really use that to cut costs or employee benefits or bonuses.

 

Only one problem with that logic. It is totally wrong. (7 and 8s not good in NPS)

 

From a link I posted earlier:

 

"The NPS Calculation

 

Calculate your Net Promoter Scores using the answer to a single question, using a 0-10 scale: How likely is it that you would recommend [brand] to a friend or colleague? This is called the Net Promoter Score question or the recommend question.

 

Respondents are grouped as follows:

 

Promoters (score 9-10) are loyal enthusiasts who will keep buying and refer others, fueling growth

 

Passives (score 7-8) are satisfied but unenthusiastic customers who are vulnerable to competitive offerings.

 

Detractors (score 0-6) are unhappy customers who can damage your brand and impede growth through negative word-of-mouth.

 

Subtracting the percentage of Detractors from the percentage of Promoters yields the Net Promoter Score, which can range from a low of -100 (if every customer is a Detractor) to a high of 100 (if every customer is a Promoter)."

 

So if you were to apply this to a person's rating (or specifically their service) as opposed to a brand then a high NPS would say that people rave about you, a low score would say people are neutral about you, and a negative (or very low score) would say that people say bad things about you.

 

Again, I don't know what system they are actually using but if they were using NPS then people asking for 10s would be just as important as with CSI.

Edited March 24, 2016 by NightOne

[jnojr]

On our recent RCI cruise I was taken aback when what I thought would be a short thank you and farewell from our waiter on the last night became a rant that was basically- I know I do a good job so I expect the ratings you give to all be 10- I don't want any rating lower- or I will not get my money. But I have done a good job so I know I can expect 10's.There is no excuse for any lower number... so that is what I will expect.

 

Hyundai does the same thing. They ask for a rating from 1 to 10, but they say "Anything less than a 10 is a failure". I know where that comes from... it's laudable to strive for perfection, but that just isn't realistic. If that's what they want, ask for a 0 or a 1.

[cruiserhal]

I shudder anytime someone from Reading posts! The last time I was there it snowed 26" that day. I had this scenario. It was the assistant waiter on Jewel in 2014. I'm generous with the ratings and even understanding of the people who spend more time than needed telling us what to rate them, but not on the last day when I couldn't get your attention for a week.

 

So you are why we get large snow storms? :) Come back in July when we could use some cooler weather. Keep smiling.

[Cuizer2]

I'm just in awe of how this thread went 132 posts deep before someone brought up their C&A status

 

and

 

That unless I missed it, no one suggested that certain C&A levels should be exempted from hearing said speech

 

 

I leave you with

 

LOL :)

 

NOBODY should have to listen to the speech. C&A status has nothing to do with it.

[John&LaLa]

This is appropriate in so many CC threads

 

This is the song that never ends

It just goes on and on my friends

Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was

And will continue singing it forever just because...

Edited March 24, 2016 by John&LaLa

[nbsjcruiser]

We were told by our waiter on our last cruise that when people fill out a survey and rate the food poorly its them that gets in hot water and not the kitchen staff or chef.

The waiter said they are expected to interpret if a guest does not like their meal and make it right by getting them a new entree so the guest will be happy and give them a 10.

 

It's the galley that gets the blame forr poor food not the waiter. The waiter does ask how your food is, so if you didn't enjoy your meal he will do everything he can to make you happy, i.e., another meal if you like. If you don't let him no or say it was fine, oh well. But your wrong it is not the waiter that gets in hot water if the food is sub par.

 

I'd like to see what evidence you have to back that up because like cruisingsince94, I've been told that the waiters are responsible for the food not the kitchen staff and I've been told that on more than one occasion.